Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 F.2d 220 - Cuthbert v. United States

Cuthbert v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

278 F.2d 220 · 1960

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
January 1986
most recently cited

75 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently January 1986 · most notably United States v. Bell (1982), United States v. Warner (1971)

75 federal appellate ·

520196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Holland v. United States · Curley v. United States · United States v. Acri · Vick v. United States · Remmer v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The authorities are clear that circumstantial evidence may, of course, * * * convict. Nevertheless, because of the fact that it is circumstantial and that a grave wrong may be done to an innocent man by reasoning from circumstances not sufficiently cogent in themselves or as connected, and particularly not sufficiently exclusive of every innocent hypothesis, the courts have been very sedulous to prevent an innocent man being found guilty where the evidence does not conform to the acceptable standards.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.